HD 197 
1841f 
Copy 2 



HD 197 
1841f 
Copy 2 

SPEECH 



OF 



JAMES A. MERIWETHER, 

OF GEORGIA, 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

ON THE BILL APPROPRIATING THE PROCEEDS OF THE 
PUBLIC LANDS, AND PROVIDING FOR PRE-EMPTIONS. 

Delivered 30th of June^ 184L 



The Bill appropriating the proceeds of the Public Lands and providing 
for pre-emption rights, being under consideration, Mr. Meriwether 
having obtained the floor, addressed the Committee in substance as 
follows: 

Mr. Chairman : It certainly v^^as no part of my purpose originally, to 
have trespassed upon the attention or patience of the Committee, upon 
this, or any other question, during the present session of Congress. And 
I have been induced alone to change that purpose, by reason of many of 
the remarks which have fallen from the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Clif- 
ford) who has just taken his seat. Circumstances in all probability, 
will induce me to vote with that gentleman in the ultimate disposition of 
this question ; and I am not willing that his principles should go forth to 
the world, as any part of those which I entertain, and which have induced 
me to coincide with him in my vote. I wish to exclude any such con- 
clusion in the public mind, and which might be arrived at, were I to re- 
main silent after what he has said. 

I cannot endorse that gentleman's opinions ; on the contrary, so far as 
he has given expression to them, as immediately connected with the sub- 
ject under discussion, 1 repudiate them entirely. I therefore ask of the 
Committee a brief indulgence, that 1 may place myself properly before the 
country, in reference to the merits of the question before us. So far then 
as relates to the principles on which the measure before us rests, I assume 
as true, that the United States Government, does not now possess, nor did 






k 



it ever possess, any title to the public lands, other than that derived by 
and through the deeds of cession, made by the several States, of their 
unappropriated territory; that in each cession, the United States has 
acquired no fee-simple estate whatever in itself, but by the terms of the 
deed holds as trustee for the several States ; that the lands create a 
common fund inuring to the benefit of all the States, to be appropriated 
to their use and benefit, and to no other use or purpose whatever, accord- 
ing to a proportion which the bill assumes ; that the Government has no 
right to appropriate to any purposes connected with, or growing out of 
its operations, any portion of that fund ; that that portion of the public 
lands purchased from France and Spain, is an estate, the purchase 
money of which was derived from the sale of the trust estate, and that 
in equity it becomes subject to all the uses and benefits of the original 
trust, and that the whole constitutes a fund to be distributed equally among 
the States. These are the principles which seem to me to be involved 
in the measure before us. They are the principles which have always 
been regarded as true, by all parties, at least in my own State, and are 
now denied, perhaps, in view only of the truth of the proposition, that 
to create differences as to men, there must first be differences of opinion 
as to measures, 

I have thus given you succinctly the principles I entertain upon this 
question. This much was due to myself, feeling constrained to vote 
against the passage of the bill, because its details inflict gross injustice 
upon the old States of this Union, who have borne all the burdens, and 
encountered all the dangers of achieving our independence, and in the 
erection of our Government, and who have ceded to the States the very 
territory you are now proposing to divide to their prejudice. 

The gentleman from Maine announced to us in advance, that his pui'- 
pose was not to make a ^^stump-speech : " that his sole object in addressing 
the Committee, was to present a fair view of this measure to his con- 
stituents. So often have the privileges of this House been perverted to 
the delivery of such harangues, that I felt gratified at hearing this one 
disclaimer. And, Mr. Chairman, while I will not be so unparliamentary 
as to charge the gentleman with doing what he so earnestly disclaimed, 
without charge, yet I will say, that if disingenuousness in argument, false 
premises, and erroneous conclusions, interspersed with ad coptandum 
phrases, calculated to play upon the passions rather than enlighten the 
judgments of the auditory, constitute any portion of the elements of 
this hybrid species of oratory, had the gentleman's speech been ad- 
dressed to an indiscriminate audience upon a muster ground, in a political 
canvass, and from a stump as the forum, his manner and his matter would 
have eminently entitled his remarks to the classification he seems so much 
to repudiate. 

There was much which fell from the gentleman that I regretted to hear, 
both as to the sentiments conveyed, as well as to the place in which they 
were uttered. He burdened his remarks with much of the invidious dis- 
tinctions which he drew between the different classes in society ; of taxing 
the poor for the benefit of the rich; in pointing to the oppressions which 

APR 1 7 1911 






fell upon the earnings of the lahorevy and the exemptions which blessed 
the overflowing treasuries of the rich. And he did not forget to remind 
us, that he and his political associates were the friends of these dear op- 
pressed poor, while, by consequence, those who did not belong to his po- 
litical clique, were the enemies of the poor, and the friends of the 
" wealthy monopolist." 

Mr. Chairman, I have no taste or ambition for that sort of popularity 
which bases itself upon the array of one class in society against another ; 
1 aspire to no glory which derives its existence from the ruined hopes and 
blasted prospects which envy and jealousy may claim as the fruits of their 
work ; I wish not a fame which can claim no higher birthright than the 
offspring of the lowest and worst passions of the heart ; nor, sir, do I 
seek to win laurels to my brow by the profession of feelings I do not in- 
dulge. I am not the exclusive friend of the poor, or the rich ; 1 desire not 
to exempt either from the burdens, nor to confer exclusively upon either 
the immunities of Government — there is no necessary warfare between 
them in society, nor is there any effort making to render one subservient 
to the other ; and the jealousy which is attempted to be aroused between 
them, owes its origin to any cause other than a just apprehension of the 
existence of such an effort. Both classes are mutually dependant upon 
each other ; both must necessarily exist in all societies ; and each should 
share the toils, and participate in the exemptions, of the pohtical com- 
munity with which they are associated. 

Sir, this arraying of one class in society against the other, this kindling 
of rancorous passions among men, because birth, or fortune, or industry 
may have thrown either competency or wealth in the lap of one and not 
in the other, strikes at the very existence of society, its well being, and its 
morals. It serves but to spread the agrarian notion, that no man holds his 
property by any other title than the will of the majority, and that they 
have aright to assume its possession, and to distribute it. It inculcates the 
reckless idea, that there should be no protection to the earnings of in- 
dustry — no security against the plunderings of the common mass. 

The mischiefs which such sentiments are calculated to produce are 
without estimate. Their influence is secret and unknown, and can never 
be appreciated, until it bursts forth upon society like a mighty ava- 
lanche, overwhelming indiscriminately all that fall within the reach of its 
wide-spread ruin. It lodges upon the mind, unrestricted as to class or 
condition in society, and there remains to irritate through years, as reverses 
or advances in fortune may succeed, developing its dangers only when 
desperation shall have fitted its victim for the deed. And such invidious 
distinctions, and the principles which they inculcate, coming from the 
American Congress, carry with them an influence as to truth, and an en- 
durance as to time, which find no limits but those which bound life itself. 

Sir, the spirit of mobocracy is now sufficiently rife through the land, 
without seeking an impetus here. Brute force has already too frequently 
been made the arbiter of right and wrong, rather than the legally consti- 
tuted tribunals of the Government. Poverty looks already with an eye 
sufficiently jaundiced upon the luxuries of wealth, or the comforts of com- 



petency ; and tlie continued admonition, that it is but subservient to both, 
in bearing their burdens and adding to their immunities, serves but to ir- 
ritate its desperation, to alienate its patriotism, and, in the phrenzy of that 
desperation, to drag down the bulv^'arks which constitutional law may have 
erected to avenge a wrong, either real or imaginary. 

As to the ejfcct of such sentiments upon political numbers, it is but as 
*' dust in the balance" when compared with the deteriorating moral pre- 
judices which they create. That they are a potent engine in forming the cast 
of political parties, cannot be denied. The history of the country for the last 
twelve years, tells most fatally what effects can be produced in political 
organizations, by persuading one class in society that another is its enemy. 
But the delusion wears away as experience depicts its fallacy. Facts can 
contradict false professions, and the mind, yielding to their influence, looks 
calmly on the probabilities of such self-devotion to the cause of those for 
whom it is professed. But the moral effect of such prejudices leaves its 
footprint incapable of change or obliteration. They break the confi- 
dence of those who feel a mutual dependance on each other; paralyze the 
strongest affections which rivet the ligaments of society together; enervate 
the energies of social action, and, appealing to the worst passions of the 
heart, engender malignity, and jealousy, and discontent there, to rankle 
and irritate, and finally to consume the higher and nobler principles of our 
nature. When, like a slumbering volcano, incapable of controlling 
longer the violence which agitates it, when least suspected, disgorge their 
fatal lava, consuming and destroying the whole structure of a virtuous and 
well organized society. And these, sir, are the effects society must bear, 
that a present stimulus may be given to the ardor of political enthusiasm. 

The gentleman from Maine was not satisfied to indulge in such a strain 
of invidious remark, but, in the fullness of that deep partisan feeling which 
characterizes too much the discussions here and elsewhere, thought proper 
to turn from the subject before him, to thrust at the present Administra- 
tion, for its management of the finances of the Government. He tells us, 
that last year he heard nothing but the cry of " retrenchment and re- 
form," — now nothing salutes his ear, but the " niggardly stinginess" of 
the past Administration ! I fear, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman's as- 
sociations are unfavorable to his hearing any other cry than that of which 
he complains. Last year I heard the same cry which now salutes the 
gentleman's ear, and I apprehend that it came from the same source — his 
political associates. When we pointed to the extravagant expenditure 
of ^ 37,000,000 in one year, by his political friends, the country was told 
that such an amount was indispensably necessary for an economical ad- 
ministration of the Government, and that nothing short of" niggardly stin- 
giness" would refuse any amount less. To deny still the extravagance of 
the past Administration, is but a part of the tactics of the gentleman's 
political associates. They dare not admit it ; for such an admission 
would but seal guilt upon their past conduct. And it is not to be wonder- 
ed at, that the gentleman, in view of party management, should, from this 
elevated position, proclaim, that no other sound greets his ear, but the 
charge of " niggardly stinginess" against the past Administration — that, 



like rays of light diverging from a common centre, his bold avowal may go 
forth to the whole American people, in commendation of his political 
friends, and in condemnation of his political opponents. 

It is true, that twelve nnllions of dollars have been asked for; but I 
should think that the gentleman would advert to the objects of the appro- 
priation as to painful reminiscences. It is true the money is asked for, and 
its appropriation pressed with earnestness upon Congress ; and as the gen- 
tleman made his speech only as a fair exposition of matters for his Con- 
stituents, as he avowed, 1 supposed he would have incorporated in it the 
reasons why this large appropriation was asked for. I did suppose he 
would have told his constituents, that, large as it was, yet nearly every 
dollar was required to pay the debts which his political friends contracted 
while in power, and which they left unpaid when they left the management 
of the Government. We had a right to expect this from one who boasted 
that his only purpose in addressing the Committee, was to give the truth 
to his constituents; and had he done so, I'should tlienhave had reason to 
believe, that, so far as the gentleman was personally concerned, these 
debts had not been thrown upon the present Administration for payment, 
with a view of swelling its expenditures, and rendering it obnoxious to that 
charge of extravagance which marked the last Administration. As it is, 
however, the country will judge of the motives of both acts. 

While, however, I cannot commend the course of the gentleman, nor 
approve the sentiments he has advanced, 1 must accord to him credit for 
the candor with which he has avowed liis principles. In reference to the 
merits of the measure before us, he has assumed the only position which 
can be occupied in opposition to it, upon principle, to escape the charge 
of gross and wanton injustice to the States — a denial of any trust resulting 
to the States ; a denial that the United States Government derived any 
title whatever to the lands from the deeds of cession, and the affirmation 
that all title which it possesses was derived from the federal constitution. 

[Mr. Clifford hei'e explained, that he had said, such were the opinions 
of Messrs. Clay and Webster, and he did not feel at liberty to dissent from 
such high authority.] Mr. Meriwether — Then I ask the gentleman, if 
he will affirm or deny the truth of these positions? [Mr. Clifford here 
went into an explanation of some length, as to his opinions, and the reasons 
for those opinions.] Mr. Meriwether resumed : I do not see how the 
gentleman's position is at all changed by the explanation. He asserts yet 
what I understood him to assert before. If he would not feel himself at 
liberty to dissent from such high authority, he must feel himself bound to 
assent to it. He did, in his argument on yesterday, advert to the deeds of 
cession in their chronological order, and when he came to the period of 
time at wliich the constitution was adopted, read that clause on which he 
relies, and concluded by the declaration as 1 understood him, that the con- 
stitution overrode the deeds of cession, and cited tiie opinions of Messrs., 
Clay and Webster to sustain his positions. 

This train of reasoning left no doubt on my mind, as to what were his 
opinions then, and his explanation still confirms my convictions as to his, 
principles. I will meet the issue as presented by him, and see whether thq 



positions assumed can be sustained by any principle of national honor, 
legitimate construction, or national faith. 

The clause of the constitution relied on to divest the States of their 
title to the publick lands, and to vest a fee-simple title in the United 
States, independent of any trust for the use of the States, is the following : 
" The Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful 
rules and regulations respecting the territory, or other property belonging 
to the United States." It is difficult to understand, even adopting the 
most latitudinous, federal construction, how the delegation of a power 
to Congress " to dispose of" " the territory" belonging to the United 
States, could be tortured into an intention to change in any way, either to 
enlarge or restrict, the character of title which the United States 
held to that territory — how the designation of a mere agency to perform 
an act, could be understood as amounting to the divesting of the title of the 
constituent, and vesting it in that agent — the power " to dispose of," is 
given, and the territory belonging to the United States is the subject 
matter of disposition, but the power to appropriate the proceeds at will, to 
any object, does not follow as a consequence. The power granted is a 
comprehensive one, it is true, but in a fair construction of the constitution, 
ought we to go farther than is necessary to give effect to the power 
granted, consistently with pre-existing rights, or shall we so construe it, as 
to destroy altogether all other rights of the parties to the compact ? Con- 
gress has power to " lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, 
to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare 
of the United States:" but does this confer upon Congress the power so 
to lay those taxes, notwithstanding when collected to be appropriated to 
the purposes designated, that one branch of industry should be protected, to 
the prostration of all others ? I apprehend not. Under this clause we might 
as well assert the right to destroy all other branches of industry fostered 
by the States, save one which meets our protection, as under the one cited 
attempt to deprive the States of their right to the trust estate, because 
Congress has power to dispose of the territory belonging to the United 
States. The constitution speaks of property, of ownership to that pro- 
perty, and of control over it ; but it nowhere speaks of a change of title 
to it, or of the particular character of title the United States should pos- 
sess. In its broadest construction it can mean nothing more, than that the 
territory belonging to the United States, whether in fee-simple or in trust, 
should be subject to the power of Congress to meet the particular purposes 
for which the estate was created. 

If, however, title is derived from the constitution to these lands, where, 
I would ask, is this territory ? By the term territory, we do not under- 
stand the geographical limits of the United States ; if so, then the ter- 
ritory within the limits of each State, would be subject to be disposed of 
by Congress: but the subsequent words of the constitution, *' or other 
property belonging to the United States," shows that such territory as 
belonged to the United States — such as it had acquired by cession or con- 
quest — was the territory meant. The constitution fixes no limits, points 
to no boundaries for this territory. When we seek for its location we must 



go outside its provisions, to the muniments of title. When we turn to 
these, we find territory marked and defined; but coupled with its descrip- 
tion, and inseparable from the conveyance, are the restrictions and condi- 
tions on which it is made. Does the clause referred to justify you in re- 
sorting to the deeds for location to the territory, and yet override the 
terms on which that territory was deeded ? Are the deeds valid as to one 
purpose, and void as to all others ? By way of illustration, 1 will briefly 
advert to the deed made by Virginia. Among other things it is condi- 
tioned, " that all the lands within the territory so ceded to the United 
States, and not reserved for, or appropriated to any of the beforementioned 
purposes, or disposed of in bounties to the officers and soldiers of the 
American army, shall be considered as a common fund for the use and 
benefit of such of the United States as have become, or shall become 
members of the Confederation, or federal alliances of the said States, Vir- 
ginia inclusive, according to their usual respective proportion in the gene- 
ral charge and expenditure, and shall be faithfully and bona fide disposed 
of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatever." 

Now I ask, if the simple grant of power to dispose of the " territory 
belonging to the United States," sanctioned by the State of Virginia, can 
include the power to wrest from the States, Virginia included, this com- 
mon fund, stipulated by deed to be appropriated to their " use and benefit," 
and, " to no other use or purpose whatever," and to vest it in the United 
States Government to do with it as it pleases? And does it render void 
the deed, save only as to the identity of property l Is this grant of power 
inconsistent with, and contradicted by the deeds of cession? Or may not 
the grant and the deeds stand without conflict? It seems tome that there 
is nothing whatever contradictory ; for the Congress may dispose of the 
territory, dispose of it in conformity with the purposes and uses of the 
deeds, and dispose of the territory belonging to the United States, either 
in fee-simple or in trust. I can see nothing, either in the deeds or consti- 
tution, or both, to establish any other opinion, than that the true criterion 
of determining their validity, is to inquire whether they can be carried into 
eiFect without paralyzing and rendering void the constitution itself. 

I might illustrate this rule of construction by a variety of examples — 
one however will suffice. By the constitution, exclusive legislation is vested 
in Congress over this District ; but by the terms of cessions from Maryland 
and Virginia, the citizens were to hold certain rights, by certain tenures. 
That these rights could be disturbed by Congress, no one has ever asserted 
or believed. And why ? Because by the very deeds through which 
this territory was obtained, over which to exercise exclusive jurisdiction, re- 
strictions were imposed as to the manner of its exercise — so with the deeds 
of cession from the several States. The act which gave territory to the 
United States, which might be disposed of by Congress, fixed the terms 
on which that disposition should be made. And as in the one case, the 
cessions can be carried out without conflicting with the constitution, so as 
to save the rights of the people ; so in the other, is the same just and 
equitable rule adopted to save the rights of the States. 

Much importance is attached to the words '' belonging to the United 



8 

States," as determining the rights of this Government to the public lands. 
One of two constructions must be placed upon them ; either they must 
mean ownership in its individual and representative character, or they 
must be restricted to its individual character alone. If they mean the 
former, and embrace both classes of title, the question is settled as to the 
rights of the States to the public lands, and that they did not surrender 
them by the adoption of the constitution. If the latter, then the argument 
is still stronger in behalf of the States. For if Congress possessed no 
power to dispose of any other territory than that belonging to the United 
States, as a government, and in their own individual right, and not in trust, 
then any control over the ceded territory has been without authority, 
and void. The constitution speaks particularly of territory " belonging to 
the United States.'^ This implies titles apart from that instrument ; of 
property, the control only over which, as well as the manner of that 
control, are pointed out in that instrument. And we have but to inquire 
how does that '^ territory " belong to the United States, through what 
channel did the title pass, to ascertain whether the Government in the dis- 
position of territory, belonging to itself independent of any trust, had the 
power to dispose of the public lands ? The restrictions of the powers of 
Congress to such an exercise, leaves the States and the Government to their 
position antecedent to the adoption of the constitution, to the relation of 
trustee, and cestui qui trust as the deeds of cession contemplated. So 
that whatever interpretation may be given to these words, as embracing 
either the one or other signification, still the constitution cannot be warped 
into any construction to defeat the right of the States to the public do- 
main, under the solemn compacts entered into between them and the 
Federal Government. 

But the concluding clause of the constitution, which has been read, 
places the question beyond controversy. It is in these words : *' and 
nothing in this constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any 
claims of the United States, or of any particular State." The preceding 
portion of the section declares that " Congress shall have power to dispose 
of the territory belonging to the United States;" and then follows the 
proviso, denying to Congress the exercise of this power to the prejudice of 
the claims of the United States, or of any particular State. 

Two classes of claims are here spoken of; the claims "of any particu- 
lar State," and of the '' United States." By the claims of the United 
States, we are not to understand the claims of the Government of the 
United States, for it would have been a senseless use of words to authorize 
the Government to dispose of its territory, but yet at the same time pro- 
hibit it from doing any thing to the prejudice of its claims to that territory 
in the disposition of it. No disposition could be made which would not 
affect the claim to it by the Government. But the claims of the United 
States, we understand as meaning the claims which the States might have, 
contradistinguished from those which belong to the Government. By 
referring to the deed of cession, before cited, we find that the claims of 
the particular State Virginia, were mostly reservations of lands to meet 
the demands on her, for the bounty warrants of the officers and soldiers of 



the American army, raised by her in the American revolution. This 
claim was not to be prejudiced by Congress disposing of the territory 
belonsins to the United States. Then there was the claim of the " United 
States." The claim created by this deed, was, that the " territory ceded 
to the United States," after meeting certain reservations, should be "con- 
sidered a common fund," to be divided among all the States, according to 
a certain proportion, to be " faithfully and bona fide disposed of for that 
purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatever." And this was a 
claim which was not to be prejudiced by the " power of Congress" " to dis- 
pose of the territory belonging to the United States." Taking the whole 
clause of the constitution together, the grant of power and the qualifica- 
tion of its exercise, there is nothing inconsistent with its provisions in any 
thing contained in the deeds of cession. 

But its history shows most fully that fact. Under the articles of con- 
federation, no power was vested in Congress to dispose of the public lands, 
because, at the time of their ratification, there was no such property. The 
cessions were made to the Continental Congress. When the confederacy 
was changed into a government, certain powers were delegated to Con- 
gress by the constitution, and such as were not delegated to the United 
States, nor prohibited to the States, were reserved to the States respectively, 
or to the people. In order then to give power to Congress to carry out 
the objects of the cessions, it became necessary that this clause or a similar 
one should be inserted in the constitution; for without it, the power of dis- 
posing of the territory would have either reverted to the States respec- 
tively, or have been lodged in the whole, without any means of execution. 
So that, then, instead of defeating and overriding these deeds, of divesting 
the rights of the States, and vesting an unlimited control of the proceeds 
of these lands in the Federal Government, by the constitution, that instru- 
ment but serves to carry out the original purposes of the States, in making 
the cessions. One of these purposes was to sustain national credit, which 
had been prostrated by the war of the revolution. To succor the Govern- 
ment, the States, with patriotic devotion, made the cessions of which I 
have spoken. By reason, however, of a change of government, it became 
necessary, to attain this object, that the power of disposing of this land 
should be vested in Congress ; and now when the States, faithful to their 
original purpose, ratify that power — when, under it, you have paid the 
debts of the revolution, and the States now ask that the purposes of the 
trust may be carried out, you tell them that it is true that once their deeds 
were binding; but since they have ratified the constitution, giving us pow- 
er to carry into effect their will, we consider that they have abandoned all 
their interest in trust in the lands, and have surrendered it up to us, to do 
with the proceeds as we please. I ask, sir, in what faith can this Govern- 
ment thus address the States ? 

But, Mr. Chairman, there is another light in which this question may- 
be viewed, which seems to contradict t[)e idea that title is derived to the 
Government from the constitution, and not from the deeds of cession. 
North Carolina and Georgia made their cessions since the adoption of that 
instrument. Now, I would ask, how could its terms regulate thsse of a 

B 



10 

contract made many years after? How Is It possible that the United States, 
obtaining title in 1802, to certain lands, by contract and upon certain terms, 
could set up the constitution as the source of its title, which had been rati- 
fied before the lands were ceded, and containing terms totally different from 
those prescribed in the contract ? 

In 1802, Georgia entered into a contract, by which she ceded to the 
United States the territory embraced in the States of Alabama and Mis- 
sissippi. The following is an extract from her deed : *' That all the lands 
ceded by this agreement to the United States, shall, after satisfying the 
abovementioned payment of $1,250,000 to the State of Georgia, and the 
grants recognized by the preceding conditions, be considered as a com- 
mon fundj for the use and benefit of the United States, Georgia included, 
and shall be faithfully disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use 
or purpose whatever.'" 

Now the principle asserted by the Opposition is, that the title to this 
land is derived from the constitution, and that the deed of cession is only 
the form by which to acknowledge the existence of that title by the State ; 
consequently no terms contained in the deed are obligatory upon the Go- 
vernment. If it can disregard the trust as part consideration of the ces- 
sion, it can alike disregard any other stipulation. If it looks to the con- 
stitution as the source of its title, it is bound to comply with no other terms 
than those there prescribed. If it is absolved from obligation to regard the 
trust which Georgia especially created as the terms of cession, and as part 
consideration thereof, why may it not disregard the payment of the 
$1,250,000, and disregard the grants referred to in the deed ? It may do 
all this rightfully, if the doctrine advanced be true. 

But has the Government ever placed the construction upon its powers 
which has been assumed for it recently ? No, sir; it has ever repudiated 
such a construction wholly and absolutely. The discovery belongs exclu- 
sively to this age of novelties. Every stipulation has been rigidly com- 
plied with, though in some instances rather tardily. And why? Was it 
because title came through the constitution ? No, sir ; but because it was 
founded on the deeds of cession, and on nothing else. The money stipu- 
lated to be paid has been paid ; the grants which were to be recognized 
have been settled by the payment of $4,282,151 ; the title to the Indian 
lands, which was to be extinguished throughout Georgia, has been extin- 
guished, embracing one half the whole territory of the State. Who is there 
that does not recollect the repeated importunities of Georgia, that this Go- 
vernment would remove the Indians from our limits, in pursuance of the 
contract of cession ? And who before ever thought to aver that this Go- 
vernment derived its title to the territory ceded from the constitution, and 
not from the deed of cession, and consequently was absolved from all ob- 
ligations which it imposed. Has not the Government always recognised 
the terms of cession by Virginia ? I shall be answered affirmatively, and 
that, too, since the constitution was adopted. Why has she done this, if 
her title was regarded by herself as derived from the constitution? No, 
Mr. Chairman; the Government has never looked for a moment to t-he 
constitodion as the source of its title to these lands ; but it has, in every in- 



11 . 

stance, regulated its entire action, in reference to the wliole lands ceded, 
both before and since the adoption of that instrument, by the terms of the 
respective deeds of cession-. Here, then, is the unvarying construction of 
these compacts by the Government itself, from the day of its organization 
to the present day, contradicting and opposing the assumptions you now 
make in its behalf! 

And apart from the legal obligation to observe its contracts, there 
was a high constitutional obligation imposed upon the Government, which 
It could in no wise, disregard, that the " engagements entered into before 
the adoption of this constitution, shall be as valid against the United States, 
under this constitution, as under the Confederation." Now, one of the 
engagements entered into with Virginia, on behalf of herself and her co- 
states was, that the territory ceded by her should form " a common fund," 
to be *• appropriated to the use and benefit of the United States, and for 
no other use or purpose whatever." And yet how can it be that the con- 
stitution has overrode these engagements, prostrated their conditions, and 
vested a title in the Government, adverse to that which the engagements 
stipulated for? 

But a question has been raised, whether the lands purchased from France 
and Spain can be held subject to the same uses and trusts with the ceded 
lands. It is denied that they can. The question arises, however, from 
what fund was the purchase money derived ? Upon casting up the accounts 
of the public lands, it appears that a large balance is in the hands of the 
trustee. The trustee admits its appropriation to the purchases in ques- 
tion, and the document furnished the gentleman from the Treasury De- 
partment, and used by him in argument on yesterday, admits the same 
fact. Now, with these uncontroverted facts before us, I apprehend no one 
will deny that equity would pursue the trust fund, and, wherever found, 
condemn it to the purposes of the original trust. 

And here, before it escapes me, allow me to call the attention of the 
gentleman from Maine, to the inconsistency of his positions on yesterday 
and to-day, as to this question. On yesterday, when it was necessary, in 
the course of his remarks, to show that the trustee had not been remune- 
rated for his advances, and that he was entitled to be indemnified out of 
the trust estate, he charged the purchase money, and all accruing interest, 
to the trust fund, and, by the aid of these items, did create a balance in 
favor of the trustee, when, without them, the trustee would have become 
indebted to the fund. To-day, when it is necessary to alarm the South 
about a protective tariff, and to demonstrate how dearly he loves the op- 
pressed poor of the country, by telling them how they were taxed to raise 
a fund to purchase these lands, and how they must be taxed to raise a fund 
to supply the deficiency created by withdrawing the proceeds of the lands 
from the treasury, he tells us that these lands were paid for by money 
derived from duties on imports! Now both propositions cannot be true; 
and while I shall not ask an explanation to satisfy my own mind as 
to their inconsistency, I will only call the gentleman's attention to them, 
that when he writes out his speech for his constituents, he may so shape 
them as to avoid the charge ; least otherwise, when he shall make a " stump 



12 

speech," lie may be asked for explanation at a critical time, by some trou- 
blesome constituent. 

That the gentleman and his party have changed their views upon this 
question since their relation to the Government has been changed, is true. 
In 1833, when they wielded the sceptre of power in Georgia, their prin- 
ciples were wholly the reverse of what they are now. They did not then 
assert that the title to the public lands was derived from the constitution, 
but on the contrary affirmed that it sprung from the deeds of cession. The 
following extract from the resolutions of the Georgia Legislature, at the 
time I have referred to, when the democratic party had an overwhelming 
majority in both branches, will show something of these opinions : 

"Without specifically inquiring into the means by which the United States 
Government became possessed of the public lands, or the causes which, 
after the war of the revolution, induced several of the States to transfer to 
that Government all, or a great portion of their unoccupied lands, under 
certain limitations and restrictions specified in the several deeds of cession 
or relinquishment, your committee deem it sufficient to state that those 
deeds and relinquishments, and all other purchases of lands by the United 
States Government, were made for the common benefit of the several States ; 
that it is a common fund, to be distributed without partiality, and to inure 
to the equal benefit of all the States." 

These resolutions were passed with great unanimity, and, if I mistake 
not, met with little or no opposition from either party. They differ to- 
tally from the present opinions of the party which expressed them. They 
not only declare that the lands ceded were ceded in trust for the benefit 
of all the States, but that those purchased by the Government were sub- 
ject to the same trust, and that the whole constitute a fund, to be " dis- 
tributed without partiality." 

The Legislature went on to declare that they could not " perceive that 
the land bill introduced into the Senate of the United Slates by Mr. Clay, 
and passed by that body, provides for the distribution of the public lands 
in thdit equitable manner contemplated by the States in their several deeds 
of cession," and therefore instructed their senators, and requested their 
representatives, to oppose the passage of a bill having for its object such 
a distribution. How far these instructions and request may be considered 
as applying to any other than the then present Congress, I shall not stop 
to inquire. The fact that several lecjislatures have convened since the 
land question agitated throughout the Union during the time, and no sub- 
sequent opinion expressed by the legislature, as I am aware, would argue 
an abandonment of the instructions and requests, and an acquiescence in 
the details of the bill. But whatever might be the opinion of others, I 
shall conform my vote to the request; not as imposing any thing obliga- 
tory upon me, but because 1 believe that the present bill " does not pro- 
vide for the distribution of the public lands in that equitable manner con- 
templated by the States in their several deeds of cession." With a modi- 
fication of the objectionable features, I should feel myself bound to vote 
for the bill, as a matter of justice to the States, and in fulfilment of the 
contract of the United States Government with them. 



13 

But the gentleman from Maine, doubting as to the truth of his position 
and as to the correctness of his principles, has sought to cover his retreat, 
by assuming that if a trust exists, the trustee has a right to be reimbursed 
(his expenditures for the trust estate) out of the estate, before he can be 
compelled to surrender it. I will not controvert the position, but yield 
the broad ground assumed, for the sake of the argument. In illustration 
and support of his position, he has exhibited an account current of the re- 
ceipts and expenditures of the public lands, and has made an excess of ex- 
penditures over receipts, and a consequent indebtedness to the trustee 
of $14,742,252. 

There are several items of credit which he should have allowed, that 
have been withheld, and several items of charge, which should have been 
omitted. But 1 will contest none of the charges, all I ask for, are the 
proper credits. The United States have taken from the choicest of the 
lands, and bestowed by way of donation to the States and Territories, for 
colleges, academies and universities, for canals and roads, for seats of Go- 
vernment, public buildings, for salines, and common schools, and which 
liave been left out of the credits due the public lands, the amount of 
13,829,546 acres. This was ihe amount in 1836; since that time donations 
amounting to more than 400,000 acres have been ordered, which would 
make the quantity of 14,229,546 acres. If we estimate the value of these 
choice lands at the lowest Government price, of $1 25 cents per acre, 
they would have yielded a revenue of $ 17,776,932. From this deduct the 
balance claimed by the gentleman, of $14,742,252, and instead of an in- 
debtedness, we have a credit of $3,034,680 in favor of the public lands. 
These facts will silence, 1 apprehend, the claims of the trustee to remune- 
ration, before he does justice to his cestui qui trust. I submit, then, to 
the Committee, that the deeds of cession, the constitution of the United 
States, the construction of the Government of its own contracts with the 
States, the construction of these contracts by the States, establish the 
principle that the deeds of cession, and all other purchases of lands by the 
United States Government, were made for the common benefit of the seve- 
ral States; that the lands are a common fund to be distributed without par- 
tiality, and to inure to the equal benefit of all the States, and, in the lan- 
guage of the Virginia and Georgia cessions, to be " faithfully and bona fide 
disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatever." 

But an argument drawn from expediency has been opposed, to battle 
down through prejudice the principle itself. We are told that the Govern- 
ment is in debt, and that to withdraw its resources when thus embarrassed, 
and to dispose of them among the Slates, is wanton and wicked prodigali- 
ty. The argument thus presented is calculated by its speciousness to show 
off prejudicially the advocates of this measure. But the argument is fal- 
lacious in itself, because it assumes as true, the very question litigated, that 
the lands are the property of the Government of the United States. I 
will not again go over the argument to establish in whom, and for what 
purposes the title has been vested; but this I will add, that the very fact 
that Virginia and Georgia, with other States, reserved these lands as a 
common fund for the use and benefit of the several States, themselves in- 



14 

eluded, shows that the reservation was to the States, as States, and not to 
the Government of the States. If the reservation had been intended to 
the Government, it would have been unnecessary to specify themselves as 
included ; because what belonged to the. Government, to be used for its 
purposes, would necessarily be used for the benefit of these States, as well 
as the rest. 

Then I repeat, the only question is, to whom do these lands belong ? 
If the gentleman's position be true, that the Government derives title 
from the constitution, and not from the deeds of cession, then is the argu- 
ment well founded ; but, if these positions are untrue, the whole argument 
falls, unsustained by any principle whatever. 

The indebtedness of the Government is no reason for the application of 
trust funds to its use, and the every day decision of our courts, do not fail 
to hold the trustee to strict accountability for the use of funds in his hands; 
and so far from palliating their use, by reason of his indebtedness, they 
visit him with exemplary damages, by fixing upon him the rigid exactions 
of annual rests, for the appropriation to his own use of funds which he pos- 
sesses alone by reason of his fiduciary character. And I would put it to the 
candor of the gentleman, and ask him, were such a case supposable, if I 
were his trustee, and pecuniary embarrassments should oppress me, so that 
I might find it to my interest, to escape the sacrifice of my property or to 
avoid the payment of interest, to appropriate his trust estate to the pay- 
ment of my debts, would I be justified in law or good faith in doing so ? 
If I would not be, then I would ask by what rule of right is the United 
States justified in appropriating to the payment of its debts, the funds it 
holds as trustee for the States? 

But the Government has always denied its right to appropriate trust 
funds without accountability. It is now trustee for several Indian tribes 
for several millions of dollars. Who will assert its right to rob the Indians 
of their money to pay the national debt with ? The Government is the 
trustee for the navy pensioners ; the trust fund has been squandered by 
mismanagement. Who will dare assert that no obligation exists to account 
for that fund ? The Government admits its liability, and at the last ses- 
sion appropriated ^150,000 to meet charges upon it, and now a part of 
the appropriations asked for, is to pay an additional charge upon that fund. 
Here is the solemn act of the Government, denying its right to appropriate 
a trust fund without accountability, to its own use; and if such exact jus- 
tice is meted out to Indian tribes and navy pensioners, I ask by what 
authority do you feel at liberty to disregard similar claims of the sovereign 
States of this Confederacy ? No sir, the argument is fallacious ; the in- 
debtedness of the Government has nothing to do with the rights of the 
States. If mismanagement has heaped a national debt upon the Federal 
Government, let that Government rely upon its own resources to pay the 
debt, and let those who have wronged the country suffer for a breach of con- 
fidence. The deprivation of the States of their rights cannot, be justified by 
the mismanagement of the finances of the country, by those who had 
charge of them. 

From the course of the argument it appears, that if our judgments can- 



15 

not be enlightened, our fears at least shall be aroused. A rod is held in 
terror over us, that if the proceeds of the public lands should be turned 
over to the rightful owners, the States, that a deficiency will be created in 
the treasury, which must be supplied, by either, a revival of a protective 
tariff, or by a tax upon the necessaries of life, which enter into the con- 
sumption of the poor ; so that we are required still to continue to filch the 
pockets of the States, or, if we refuse to do so, we must then incur the 
charge of oppressing the poor for the benefit of the rich. 

To demonstrate the truth of his position, the gentleman from Maine 
assumes that $22,000,000 is the least possible amount that the Govern- 
ment, under an economical administration, can get along with. What 
motive he can have in assuming so high an estimate for economy, I am 
not prepared to state, unless it is to screen the follies of the past Adminis- 
tration, to which he belonged. But I can assure him that the present 
party in power will not be satisfied with such expenditures ; they must be 
materially reduced below that sum. With all the embarrassments you 
have heaped upon us, the average annual expenditure will not exceed, if 
it equals, $18,000,000. 

But, arguing the question upon the gentleman's hypothesis, that the re- 
ceipts and expenditures are equal at $22,000,000, let us see what his 
conclusions are : 

Deduct for proceeds of public lands, - - - $3,500,000 
For reduction of duties after 1st July, 1842, 5,000,000 



Makes a deficit of $8,500,000 



To meet this deficiency, he tells us that the outside of duties to be 
gathered from articles now duty free, is $5,000,000, which consequently 
will leave a deficit still of $3,500,000. 

I will not attempt to oppose my humble knowledge of the finances of 
our country to that of the gentleman ; it would be presumptuous in me to 
do so. But he will pardon me for believing that he has committed some 
gross errors in the facts he has assumed. It is true I have not the bene- 
fit of documents privately furnished from the Treasury, as the gentleman 
has, nor do I think that I would use them if I could obtain them ; but I 
have before me a report of the Secretary of the Treasury, made on the 1st 
July, 1840, which authorizes me to come to different conclusions from 
his. I shall not attempt to follow him through all his calculations, for 
that would be impossible. He has stated to the Committee two errors of 
no small magnitude, which he fell into yesterday, and which he has 
promptly and properly corrected ; and I have no doubt when he comes to 
review his calculations, he will see numerous others which require cor- 
rection. I can only take his general conclusions of this morning and meet 
them; and they are, that not more than $5,000,000 can be collected 
from the free articles, by levying a duty of 20 per cent., ad valorem. 

The report upon w*hich I rely, is a statement of the imports for the 
year ending 30th September, 1839, and I assume that year as a fair ave- 
rage of the succeeding years. 



16 

Here, sir, are some of the articles, and their vahie, as stated hy the 

Treasury Department, in its official and puhlic report, as admitted duty 
flee : 

Lace Veils, shawls, shades, &ic., - - - $345,490 

Other manufactures of silk, - . . . 18,685,295 

Manufactures of silks and worsted, - - - 2,319,884 

Camlets of goat-hair, &c., - - . - 128,389 

Worsted stuff goods, - - . . - 7,025,898 

Linen, bleached and unbleached, . . - 6,731,278 

Ticklenburgs and Osnaburgs, &ic., - - - 483,269 

Sheeting, brown and white, - - ^ - - 535,789 



These articles, amounting to - - - - $36,255,292 
would, at a duty of 20 per cent., yield a revenue of $7,251,058 annually. 
According to the estimate of the gentleman, this would be insufficient, 
however, to meet the deficit, by $1,248,942. But supposing that his 
estimates are wrong, as experience will prove them to be, and that in- 
stead of $22,000,000 as the annual expenditure, it should not exceed 
$18,000,000; instead, then, of a deficiency, we shall have, by taxing 
these articles only, an annual surplus of $2,751,058 to appropriate to the 
extinguishment of the national debt. 

The gentleman, after declaring that this deficit will exist in the trea- 
sury, goes on to state that it cannot be supplied but by a tax on tea and 
coffee, and asks, most emphatically, if any representative from Maine 
will dare to vote for any duty on these articles ? I cannot answer for his 
colleagues, what they dare or dare not do, but I can tell him that if he is 
as much of an anti-tariff man as he would make us believe he is by his 
declarations, he would maintain the principle that all^ articles imported 
should pay an ad valorem duty. We, of the South, have ever complained 
that the tariff laws were unequal, because they discriminated so far as to 
make a large portion of the imports duty free, while the residue had to 
pay double duty, to create funds enough to carry on the Government. 
To show the truth of our position on this question, 1 will only say, that 
the annual average value of imports paying duties, from 1834 to 1840, is 
$71,685,347 ; the annual average value of imports duty free, for the 
same time, excluding bullion and specie, is $60,738,527 ; so that seven- 
thirteenths of the imports pay all the revenues derivable from that source. 
And who, I ask, is there, in his moments of calm reflection, unexcited by 
interest, will undertake to say that such discrimination is just. I will not 
say that discriminating duties are prohibited by the constitution ; but I 
will say that discrimination to such an extent is uiiequal, unjust, and un- 
constitutional. The gentleman says that there are many who are opposed 
to a protective tariff, but if you force the alternative between a duty on 
coffee and tea, and a protective tariff, they will take the latter. Now, 
this declaration amounts in substance to this: that so long as you place 
the duties on such articles as are not among those* which they consume, 
and consequently they are thereby relieved from paying any duties to the 
support of Government, they will denounce a protective tariff; but if you 



17 

seek to make lliem contribute something to the support of Government, 
they will then force a protective tariff upon you, by which they will still get 
what they consume without tax. If there is any difference b^ween these 
positions 1 do not perceive it; both assume that these patriotic citizens 
must live under the Government, and enjoy its protection, without contri- 
buting to its support. This you must do for them peaceably, if you will ; 
but do it you shall, at all hazards. 

No, sir ; the anti-tariff party, whether North or South, East or West, 
have ever made it a cardinal principle in their faith, that all duties should, 
as near as can be done, in justice to the Government, be laid upon the 
nd valorem principle. No interest or portion of society is benefited by 
the admission of any article duty free, especially necessaries, but the 
manufacturing interest, whether that be in the North or South. As these 
Tiecessaries are rendered cheaper by the absence of duties, so is the manu- 
facturer of any article paying duties enabled to procure his labor cheaper; 
so that what is made on the price of necessaries, is lost in profits to the 
manufacturer. And just so much as these manufactures, when imported, 
are taxed above an ad valorem duty, which would be sufficient for reve- 
nue when placed alike on all importations, so much is that excess a tax 
paid to their protection and encouragement, by the admission of such goods 
duty free as are consumed by those connected wnth the manufacturers. 
The ad valorem principle has been recognised under the compromise law, 
whenever a contingency shall arrive which is there pointed out. That 
contingency has already arrived, and we are called to act upon it. 

Assuming then such a duty on importations, in contemplation of that 
act, and for the purpose of ascertaining our means for revenue, let us see 
what amount of duties can be realized from articles now duty free. In view 
of supplying the deficit which is still existing under the calculations of the 
gentleman from Maine, and of testing the accuracy of his positions, I will 
leave out of the account the articles of tea and coffee, amounting to near 
S 13,000,000. Of the following articles, to wit : zinc, burr-stones un- 
wrouo-ht, brimstone and sulphur, rags of any kind of cloth, undressed furs, 
hides and skins raw, plaster of paris, Barilla wood dye, unmanufactured 
mahogany, animals for breed and other animals, tin in pigs and bars, in 
plates and sheets, copper in pigs and bars, in plates for ships, old copper 
for remanufacture, cocoa fruits, bolting cloths, wool not exceeding 8 cents 
per pound in value, quicksilver, opium and crude saltpetre — there were im- 
ported into the United States, during the time before stated, in value, 
^13,584,196, which, at a duty of 20 per cent., would yield an annual re- 
venue of $2,716,839. Now, sir, putting these facts together, we have 
the following results: 

Assuming the expenditures to be annually - - $18,000,000 

The receipts at present, - - - $22,000,000 

But deduct for public lands $3,500,000 

Decrease in 1842 under com- 
promise - - - 5,000,000 

Makes - - - - - 8,500,000 



18 

Which would leave only an available balance 

in the Treasury of ^ ----- $ 13,500,000 



Which, aeducted from expenditures, leaves a deficiency 

of $'4,500,000 

Now, to meet this, we have of duties on ar- 
ticles first specified - _ _ $'7,251,058 
Add duty on last articles - - - 2,716,839 



Which makes an annual revenue of - - - $9,967,897 

Deduct deficit 5,500,000 



And the annual surplus would be - - - $4,467,897 



But, taking the gentleman's assumptions as indisputably true, let us see 
whether the deficit is not fully met. 

The additional revenue is $9,967,897 

The deficit is 8,500,000 



Leaving a surplus of $1,467,897 

to be applied to the national debt, and the articles of tea and coffee (whicli 
are likely to make so many high-tariff men) left out of the estimate alto- 
gether. 

With the deficit so easily provided for, I ask what reason can be urged 
on principle, against awarding to the States their just rights. 

Will it be contended that they will derive no benefit from their several 
distributive shares ? Have they no purposes to which they might apply 
them ? No debts to pay ? No taxes on their citizens which might be 
alleviated ? No embarrassments among the people which might be light- 
ened by a judicious application of the funds ! 1 know that it is a favorite 
declaration, and seems to have grown into a doctrine with a certain party 
here, that there is no " want or embarrassment" in the country. The 
great leader of the Democratic party in the Senate, a day or two since, 
said that none such existed any where in the land. I find that this doc- 
trine is inculcated as best subserves party purposes. Here, for the pur- 
pose of defeating the action of Congress on the great questions which are 
called to our consideration, we are told that no kind of " want or embar- 
rassment" exists in the land. In my own State, this same party, with a 
view of retrieving their lost fortunes and again getting into power, tell the 
people that the greatest embarrassments conceivable hang around them, 
and that they must be relieved or ruined. And, sir, the pending elections 
are made to turn upon the existence of embarrassment and relief; which 
embarrassment is denied in this Capitol, and by that same Democratic par- 
ty, to have any existence anywhere. And because of such profession of 
faith, they are resorting here to every manoeuvre of party discipline, to 
defeat any thing being done for the relief of the country ; willing to force 



19 

upon it a ruinous and depreciated currency, to stop the operations of the 
Government for the want of means to carry it on, and to thwart every 
reasonable scheme that promises good to the people. 

But, sir, if Georgia had her share of the public lands, it would be a 
source of relief to her people ; relief by loans to the people ; relief by par- 
tial exemptions from taxation. And 1 have but to hope that this bill may 
be so amended, as that, in accordance with my opinions of what is right, 
and in accordance with the wishes of our Legislature, I can vote for it as 
an act of sheer justice to the States. For, upon principle, the issue pre- 
sented is, whether the States shall be deprived of their rights, that the con- 
sumers of articles duty free may still be indulged in their exemptions, or 
whether the States shall receive their rights, and every citizen who asks 
the protection and benefits of the Government be required to contribute to 
its support. And whether those exempted are " wealthy monopolists," in 
the persons of manufacturers, 1 will leave those who love the poor people 
so dearly, to determine. 

An insidious attempt is making to prejudice the rights of the States, by 
identifying this measure with the assumption of State debts. This, sir, 
is the " raw head and bloody bones" which party virulence presents to 
every proposition which it opposes, and against which it has no argument*; 
to offer, with a view of alarming those who cannot be lead by persp,asion. 
For one, I shall look to^he intrinsic merits of every proposition presented 
to me, and, judging of each by itself, and for itself, act accordingly, 1 de- 
sign not to be persuaded against my judgment, nor to be alarmed by ao 
appeal to my fears. 

iMore than ten years ago^ the States commenced demanding a distribu-. 
tion of this fund according to the terms of cession. At that time, very 
few, if any, of the debts now owing by them were contracted. How, then, 
could they have been influenced to make this demand, to procure the as- 
sumption of a debt which did not then exist ? Connecticut has always 
been clamorous for this distribution ; she owed no debt when she made the 
first demand, and owes none now. North Carolina has not been behind 
her sister State in demanding this distribution ; she owed no debt, owes 
none now, and has a redundant treasury. 

How could these States be actuated by the mercenary motive of hav- 
ing their debts assumed, when they owed none ? Sir, it is enough to with- 
hold from the States their rights, without impeaching the moliv'es of their 
citizens in demanding them. 

The cry of assumption of State debts is a fine theme for the demagogue 
to harp upon. If such an idea ever existed, it was in the bosoms of*those 
who vociferated the cry the loudest ; and it was only done to prevent or 
allay complaint for the doing the very act themselves, which they charged 
upon others a desire to do. Upon two occasions State debts have been 
assumed ; one after the war of the revolution ; the other by the last Admi- 
nistration, in taking the debt due Holland by this District; in the conver- 
sion of the trust funds of the Indians into State debts; and in the loan to 



20 

some of the United States of the Smithsonian bequest. And these are 
likely to be the only debts of the States which this Government will 
guarantee to see paid, until, in the course of events, the Democratic par- 
ty shall come into power again. 

For one, I regard such an assumption both as unjust and unconstitu- 
tional, and nothing short of the power of Deity could force me into the 
support of such a measure. And this expression of opinion I offer in con- 
demnation of the policy of our opponents, believing that at no period of my 
life shall I be called upon to act on the question. 

Mr. Chairman, if I stood where other gentlemen stand upon this ques- 
tion, not objecting to the details of the bill, but holding the principle that 
this fund belongs to the Government, looking upon matters as they are 
now presented in the history of the times, 1 should begin seriously to in- 
quire what line of policy I should pursue, in regard to these lands, by 
which I could do the most good to the whole country. That they will, 
by some policy or other, be taken from the use of this Government in a 
short time, is not to be denied by those who are the least willing to admit 
the fact. Three schemes are before the country, each with its advocates, 
and embracing all conflicting opinions ; and though no one scheme may 
succeed, being opposed by both of the others, yet any two united will 
prevail. And with the absolute certainty that these lands are doomed^ 
the only question left to be settled is, which is tl|e best plan to dispense 
most exact justice to all the States. The pre-emption system, the favorite 
measure of the late Democratic, party, proposes to wrong the States out of 
the best lands, at the lowest prices, and to throw them into the hands of 
those who have the fleetest heels and fewest ties to bind them to the 
country, and who, constituting a large voting population, will not forget 
the bosom which warms them into being. This is the Democratic scheme 
of getting clear of the lands, and will be adhered to under all circumstances, 
for self-interest, and in sacrifice of the rights of others. The cession scheme 
proposes to rob the residue of the Union — to throw a bribe into the laps 
of the new States in the next presidential canvass. It is the bantling of 
no party, and is only offered as a nucleus around which to forn) one. The 
distribution plan proposes to give something to all the States, and has more 
of justice in it than any other one submitted. The gentleman from Maine 
says that it was dictated and concocted in party caucus, as such matters 
usually are. I suppose he has exact information on that point; but if I 
know any thing of its origin, it will be found to have arisen from the de- 
mands of the States for justice — to have once passed both branches of Con- 
gress, when his friends had the power here, and was defeated by an appro- 
priation of the bill to his own uses by General Jackson — to have been 
recommended by the present Chief Magistrate as an act of justice to the 
States, and to have come to us through a report of a standing committee 
of this House. 

Now, with these facts before us, the im|X)rtant question is, which of 
these plans should we adopt, in view of doing the greatest justice to the 
greatest number? 



21 

I throw out these suggestions for those who assert for Congress the 
right, under the constitution, to nnake such disposition of the proceeds of 
the lands as it pleases. 

I come now, in the last place, to state ray objections to the details of the 
bill, and which, if not modified, will prevent my support of it. 

The first section provides that the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Ala- 
bama, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Michigan, shall, in 
addition to what each is entitled to by the terms of compacts entered into 
between them and the United States upon their admission into the Union, 
receive ten per cent, upon the nett proceeds of the public lands, within 
the limits of each State respectively. This is to be paid before distribution 
takes place ; and then these States are to share equally with all the rest, 
according to representative population. The seventh section provides that 
each one of these States shall receive of the United States a sufficient 
quantity of land to make up to each State the amount of 500,000 acres, 
to be selected within the limits of such State, in such manner as the Legis- 
lature thereof shall direct. 

These provisions are manifestly unjust, and create a distinction in favor 
of the new States, in violation of the deeds of cession, proposing an equal 
distribution of the lands ceded. That they should have some advantages 
over the old States, I think manifestly just ; for, deprived as they are of 
control and ownership in the soil, they must be helpless corporations in 
truth, if liberal donations of soil are not given to them. Besides, for all 
national purposes, without this donation, they must rely exclusively upon 
taxation, which their people cannot bear, or else they must content them- 
selves to remain mere cyphers in the Union, a position which I am not 
willing to see them occupy. These States embrace a great and growing 
people. They are now, and are destined to be, the most important section 
of our Union. For one, rather than stay their progress for a moment, in 
their onward march in science, and in the development of the vast resources 
of their territory, I would accelerate them at every step, and wish them God- 
speed. I do not, therefore, complain of what they have received. 1 do not 
complain of the per centum paid them at their admission into the Union. 1 do 
not complain of what they have received for works of internal improvement, 
for purposes of education, nor for what they are to receive for similar pur- 
poses; but, I do say, and I think as a representative of an old State, I 
have a right to complain that these Stales are not satisfied with what they 
have, and are to receive; but that after giving them ail that is demanded 
as just and equal, after allowing them all they claim, that then a large 
bonus is to be allowed them, and for what? For no other reason than 
that they have been made what they are, by the favor and partiality of the 
old States. 

The following statement, taken from the documents of this House, will 
show what donations in money and land have been, and are to be made 
to these States, exclusive of the ten per cent, to be paid under the first 
section of this bill. 



22 





11 
Jo 


If 


li 

1-' rt 




ill 

."5 5 


s id o 

S e oj c 


m 


STATES. 


'i^ 




s^^ 


li 


mount pa 
State for c( 
ing roads 
the same. 


gIF 


III. 






lis 




=5^ 


mount 
roads 1 
States, 
tion of 


g-gregat 
ceivea 
in mor 
of land 




r" 


<; 


H 


>• 


< 


-a 


< 




Acres. 


Acres. 


Acres. 


Dollars. 


Dollars. 


Dollars. 


Dollars. 


Ohio, - 


1,842,911 


_ 


1,842,911 


2,303,6.38U89,968 51 


326,044 34 


3,119,650 85 


Indiana, 


1,074,163 


65,777 


1,139,940 


1,424,920 461,552 61 


307,701 74 


2,194,174 35 


Illinois, 


1,537,317 


20,000 


1,557,317 


1,946,646 308,928 96 


205,952 64 


2,461,527 60 


Missouri, 


1,212,426 


500,000 


1,712,426 


2,140.532176.229 20 


117,486 14 


2,434,247 34 


Alabama, 


1,363.832 


100,000 


1,463,832 


1,829,790 355,921 63 


223,947 76 


2,389,659 39 


Mississippi, - 


833,550 


500,000 


1,333,550 


1,666,937:411,778 02 


274,518 68 


2,352,233 70 


Louisiana, 


613,789 


500,000 


1,113,789 


1,392,2361138,155 19 


- 


1,530,391 19 


Micliigan, 


969,759 


500,000 


1,469,759 


1,837,198; 31,780 00 


_ 


1,868,978 00 


Arkansas, 


976,896 


500,000 


1,476,896 


1,846,120,156,794 96 


- 


2,002,914 96 



This table, Mr. Chairman, shows with what liberaHty this Government 
has dealt with the new States, i do not complain of this liberality — I 
would not wrest from them a dollar which they have received ; but I must 
say, that in all conscience they should be satisfied with what they have, 
and should not, Shylock like, demand the very last pound in the bond. But 
there is no bond ; we are under no obligation to have acted so liberally 
with them; they have received all they are entitled to, and should be 
satisfied. That they have received what is charged to them, is evident 
from the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, dated 7th February, 
1839, from which I have extracted the foregoing statements. 

And now I would ask, why is it proposed, in addition to what has been 
received and still is to be received by these States, to give them ten per 
cent, of the nett proceeds of the sales of tlie lands, and then give them an 
equal share according to population with the otlier States? 1 am told, 
that it is because they increase more rapidly in population than States ex- 
cluded. If this be the reason, it is unequal in its operation as to the 
States included, and unequal to the States excluded. Ohio has increased 
her population within the last ten years at tlie rate of sixty-two per cent. ; 
Micliigan at a rate of near six hundred per cent. ; Alabama at the rate of 
eighty-seven percent. ; Illinois at the rate of two hundred per cent. ; and a 
like disproportion is found to exist among all the favoured States. Now, if 
justice is the object sought by this feature of the bill, why is Michigan 
placed on a footing with Ohio, and Illinois with Alabama? If it is proper 
to discriminate between the States included and those excluded, why do 
you not discriminate between those included ? 

Among the excluded States, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Con- 
necticut, New Hampshire, and Maryland, have not increased at an average 
of five per cent., in their aggregate population; Tennessee, Pennsylvania, 
Maine, and New York, have increased at an average of twenty-five per 
cent.; and Georgia at the rate of thirty-five per cent. 

Why put these States upon an equality, when such a great inequality 
exists in their relative increase of population ? Sir, there is no justice in 



28 

it. The distribulion, if made, will be made upon llie next census; ibe 
increase of population will then be felt and respected ; and surely that 
is enough, without providing for an increase which has not yet taken place. 
You are going to pay these States twice over ; once for the increase itself, 
and then for the prospect of anotlier. 

Or if you are determined to demand the last shilling, then do justice 
to all. Distribute to each State, not according to any arbitrary rule whicli 
you may, and which you have assumed, but according to the relative in- 
crease of each State in population. With that I would be satisfied; but 
if the distinction is made otherwise, it must be for some meritorious cause ; 
it is then an appeal to my charity, and not to my justice, and of that I must 
judge by the facts. 

But this bill contains another provision in violation of the deeds of ces- 
sion. It is proposed to take a new partner into the firm — the District of 
Columbia, not recognized by any of the deeds. The portion which would 
fall to that partner is small in truth ; but yet the change of the cestui qui 
trust is equally in violation of the compacts between the States and this 
Government. The lands are to be divided among the States, and the 
States alone ; and for thesame reason that 1 would deliver up these lands 
to the States, would I confine the distribution to the States alone. 

By every obligation which rests upon this Government, are we bound to 
yield to the States every right which belongs to them. It is due to good 
faith that we should so act. Every nioral and legal obligation rests upon 
lis to do so ; we never can preserve the confidence of the constituents of 
this Confederacy, by any other course of conduct ; we must manifest by 
our deportment towards them, a scrupulous observance of, and respect for 
their rights ; yield to them every thing they have a right to claim at our 
hands ; and, rather than be suspected for a moment of a desire to act upon 
the maxim that " might forgets right," 1 would accord to them even the 
possession and exercise of every doubtful right. And, though I frankly con- 
fess that were I to regard this question as others do, that this Government 
is the owner of these lands, and not the States, that I should not favor 
this measure for a moment; yet, feeling that I must trample on the rights 
of the States, if I withhold from them what they have expressly reserved to 
their own " use and benefit," and to no other *' use or purpose" whatever, 
should this bill be so amended as to secure the rights of the whole States, 
1 shall give to it niy support. 



PRINTED BY PETER FORCE, TENTH STREET, NEAR PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ^ 

„ ■IlillHil* 
027 331 553 6 



